The Tar Sands are a deposit of oil that is dispersed amongst the upper levels of the soil. So what do the big wigs do in order to obtain this oil? First, they clear cut the forest. This isn't just any forest, it's the 10,000 year old Boreal. I don't think I have to explain why that is bad, any first grader can tell you. Then, they completely remove those upper levels of soil, so nothing can grow back. The process then used to separate/refine this oil takes several barrels of natural gas, 6 barrels of drinking-quality water...to produce ONE barrel. And this isn't even good oil. Because it isn't a concentrated deposit, it has alot of other residuals in it, so it burns dirtier than regular oil, which means MORE pollutants.

You can see the waste ponds from this process from space.... FROM FUCKING SPACE! The destruction is already the size of Delaware...and the entirety of the deposit is the size of Florida.

And guess what? Safeway, Dole, and Chiquita have all said that they will continue to use the Tar Sands oil to fuel their businesses. My response: Boycott the fuckers. There are much better ways to do business than this.

Can you please post where you're getting this information from? A quick google turns up some information. However, I wasn't able to verify the details of the refining process you named, nor the details about the forest itself.

I'd be keen to know more precise information on this too, and I wonder, why would the friggin' banana giants be interested in drilling for oil in the subarctic parts of the Northern hemisphere? The taiga belt of coniferous woodland - Russia, Scandinavia, Quebec and so on? That's neither their home field nor their kind of industry. Or have Dole et al. just pledged to keep using a particular kind of oil that's from this layer?

You're stating yourself that this kind of oil is hard to process and doesn't give great fuel in the end. To Dole and Chiquita it would be pretty much indifferent where the oil comes from, so any sane abd rational person in those corporations, if they wanted a steady flow of good oil for their needs, would push for oil and gas exploration in the Arctic - which is in the starting pits of course! Now I don't support drilling for fossil fuels in the Arctic, it poses tremendous risks to the ecology, I'm against it for sure - but that's the kind of policy Dole and many others would be likely to support from their own economic ends, isn't it?

I looked at Greenpeace's website, and I found this blog entry and this campaign page. Both of them are quite heavy on emotional language and light on facts, but the second one had some links. One of the pages linked talked about water pollution, but the detail is again sorely lacking.

Nowhere on Greenpeace's website can I find a link to these companies you have named.

If you're going to call for a boycott and talk about how these companies are somehow contributing to the destruction and carnage, it would be greatly appreciated if you would provide an actual reason for the boycott. Preferably with reliable sources. (And Greenpeace, because of its heavy bias, only barely counts as a reliable source.)

Additionally, I'm not sure why boycotting these companies is especially effective as compared to, say, working to actively reduce one's consumption of fossil fuels. It strikes me as one of those stop-gap good deeds that makes you feel better about your contribution to the environment, but which does not actually contribute to a long-term solution.

Anyway the present strain of fat, succulent bananas will very likely have dropped out of commercial production in a few decades and some other strain will have taken over. The banana is the most heavily genetically developed food plant in the world, so by being so refined and being a plant that essentially copies itself from generation to generation - almost no reshuffling of the genes - it's very vulnerable to diseases.

The reason being is that these companies have stated that they will continue to use the oil that comes from the Tar Sands. A demand causes the suppliers to supply. Therefore more deforestation, strip mining, water pollution, etc.

The average banana travels 3000~ miles to reach it's consumer. Dole and Chiquita ship their products using diesel derived from Tar Sands oil. Safeway gases up all of it's trucks with the same.

Consumer power accounts for something. It may not be alot, but it's something. And that's a whole lot better than nothing. My fossil fuel needs are pretty small. I don't own a car; I get around by foot, bike, or the best public transit in America. ( WOOT! Trimet! ) I buy a lot of local goods, and yes, my house is heated on natural gas, but we have a high-efficiency furnace and modernized insulation to reduce the amount we consume. And I try to convince people to do these kinds of things everyday.

This is going to come off as a dick, but it needs to be said. If you don't want anything to do with the oil sands, burn your computer, take your house off the grid, and start growing your own food. the Oilsands are about the biggest source of oil for all of North America. There is almost nothing you can touch that doesn't exist thanks to the Canadian oil sands.

I think a dose of realism is nice, but so is a bit of centrism, as well; everyone could do with curbing their energy consumption, on the whole, regardless of this issue. While there may not be a way to completely remove yourself from anything connected to this industry short of taking yourself off the grid entirely, I think the promotion of responsible usage is good, nonetheless. Unfortunately, Revolverman does still have a point -- until alternative fuel sources are made cheaper and more accessible, oil dependency is hardly on the decline.

There is a lot of work to be done, but at the same time, you have to be mindful of not proselytizing others to the point you turn them away from your cause entirely (think Jehovah's Witnesses showing up at your door D:).

Greenpeace is a terrible organization and an unreliable source of information. When they're not spreading misinformation about companies who refuse to release to them the details of their manufacturing processes and other trade secrets, they're campaigning against DDT usage in countries that have a gigantic malaria problem and convincing starving people to reject offers of GMO crops on the basis of absolutely nothing (aside from the naturalistic fallacy of course). They're right next to PETA on the list of insane activists.

@Noelle: I've been doing activism work for a long time, so I hear ya on not sounding like a douche. I respect people's right to their own opinion, just as I reserve the right to disagree with it. I can't force anyone to change their standpoint, just bring them information and express myself.

@Revolverman: Yeah, I'd love to do that. But the reality of the situation is that I can't. Like alot of people, so I have to use what little clout and all of the drive I have to be able to effect change. To sit idly by is just about as big a crime, in my opinion. (Sidenote: I do grow some of my own food. I share a communal organic garden with my sister and a friend of ours. Once we are in the full swing of harvest, I will pretty much be eating my own food entirely)

@Jude: Slighty off-topic, but .... nah, I won't touch this. I share the view that GMO is bad juju, and giving it to starving people is just plain and simple, fucked up. Not because those people deserve to be starving, that's definitely not where I'm going with it, but it's just that GMO is harmful in several ways that I won't get into right now. There have been countries that have refused to use, or have even burned the seeds that have been sent to them by Monsanto because they don't want to bring those problems down on their own heads.

@Jude: Slighty off-topic, but .... nah, I won't touch this. I share the view that GMO is bad juju, and giving it to starving people is just plain and simple, fucked up. Not because those people deserve to be starving, that's definitely not where I'm going with it, but it's just that GMO is harmful in several ways that I won't get into right now. There have been countries that have refused to use, or have even burned the seeds that have been sent to them by Monsanto because they don't want to bring those problems down on their own heads.

Ok, besides Monsanto's abuse of IP laws when it comes to the seeds, WHAT exactly is wrong with GMO? Hell, all food is GMO, we just called it Selective breeding back in the day.

My primary deal is the whole Monsanto's ability to snatch farmland away from the people, and how if that goes unchecked we could run into a serious problem. There's also additional talk about other shady dealings with that company and food, including potentialities of the declining bee population. But that's a completely different subject.

And also, selective breeding is one thing; you breed together parents in the hopes of having offspring with a particular quality. Using golden needles and petri dishes to alter the genetic structure of an organism goes against my spiritual beliefs. And I don't feel they should be able to patent an organism.

If you want to eat GMO, be my guest. It's not the kind of pollution I want in my body, though.

My primary deal is the whole Monsanto's ability to snatch farmland away from the people, and how if that goes unchecked we could run into a serious problem. There's also additional talk about other shady dealings with that company and food, including potentialities of the declining bee population. But that's a completely different subject.

And also, selective breeding is one thing; you breed together parents in the hopes of having offspring with a particular quality. Using golden needles and petri dishes to alter the genetic structure of an organism goes against my spiritual beliefs. And I don't feel they should be able to patent an organism.

If you want to eat GMO, be my guest. It's not the kind of pollution I want in my body, though.

None of that speaks to the actual quality of the food itself. Objecting to it on moral grounds doesn't make it unfit for consumption by starving people.

That's their prerogative, I'm not attempting to judge them. Some have shown that they would rather starve than have Monsanto swoop in and take control over their farms, and therefore the foodsource. The 'quality' of this food doesn't follow the whole 'if it looks like a duck'. It's more like a trans-species chicken that really has duck looks and quacks too. But in the end, it's not a duck. In my opinion, it all seems pretty shady.

DNA is structured very specifically. To tamper with the actual structure of it affects us in ways that most don't believe nor comprehend. I'm not trying to sound like an egotist, or say that I'm smarter than you or any of that bullox. It's just that in this instance there's alot more disinformation than there is truth.

I do hope that neither you nor anyone in your immediate circle becomes/is diabetic - or suffers a burn, needs an organ transplant, or develops cancer. Insulin for diabetics has been made using genetic engineering. Antihemophilic factors are mass-produced through genetic engineering. Human albumin (a significant portion of blood plasma, which is frequently needed when treating severe burns) is mass-produced through genetic engineering. Many monoclonal antibodies, used for the treatment of things ranging from arthritis to cancer are mass-produced through genetic engineering.

U.S. companies (unlike those in Europe) aren't required to label foods that use genetically modified ingredients, so if you live in the U.S., you've almost certainly been ingesting them for some time without knowing it.

As for any evidence outside of Greenpeace that those three companies are leading the drive to exploit the Tar Sands, no luck there, I'm afraid.

The average banana travels 3000~ miles to reach it's consumer. Dole and Chiquita ship their products using diesel derived from Tar Sands oil. Safeway gases up all of it's trucks with the same.

Unless you can provide a link saying that these companies get the fuel for their trucks and ships -specifically- from the company that mines the tat sands, anything you claim will be seen as bogus and nothing more than emotionally driven rage.

DNA is structured very specifically. To tamper with the actual structure of it affects us in ways that most don't believe nor comprehend. I'm not trying to sound like an egotist, or say that I'm smarter than you or any of that bullox. It's just that in this instance there's alot more disinformation than there is truth.

DNA is hardly structured at all. For example, human DNA has the remains of long-dead viruses from thousands -- perhaps even millions -- of years ago. There are long strands of junk, sections which lead to horrible genetic diseases, and lets not forget how copying errors and radiation screw up even perfectly fine strands.

DNA isn't really some carefully balanced equation designed by a brilliant mind -- that's an unsubstantiated creator fallacy that rejects the obviousness of evolutionary biology -- it's a code for building an organism piecemeal that was assembled from the longest trial and error process that life on earth will ever know.

That doesn't mean unintended consequences couldn't arise from its manipulation, perhaps scientists could copy over a section of DNA and accidentally drag along some unintended genes. It isn't a delicate process, but mistakes can still be made. Which is why we've had these crops tested for their safety repeatedly. My understanding is that on the whole most GM foods have passed with flying colors, but if there is any evidence that a particular GM crop is dangerous, it obviously should not be distributed (I think that's a non-controversial opinion).

The problem with Greenpeace is that they opposed GM foods before any research was done and have continued to do so after even in cases where the food's safety was vindicated. Greenpeace is an organization of ideologues who want reality to fit their opinions, when they should be structuring their opinions to fit reality. That is commonly called delusion.

EDIT: The economics of GM crops is a totally different subject though. It isn't a scientific question, and it's no where near as clear as the safety one. I don't feel like weighing in on that beyond saying that there are a lot of valid criticisms in that arena.

And also, selective breeding is one thing; you breed together parents in the hopes of having offspring with a particular quality. Using golden needles and petri dishes to alter the genetic structure of an organism goes against my spiritual beliefs. And I don't feel they should be able to patent an organism.

Emphasis (the bolded) added. That right there pretty much disqualifies your rant as anything but emotional raving.

@Zakharra: Considering that GMO wasn't the original topic here, I think I can say whatever I'd like on the subject, as can you. The reason why I emphasized 'spiritual' was to indicate that it had no basis in scientific fact to begin with. Your criticism is redundant. And being a complete stranger to me I hardly think you can be the one to judge my emotions. Nuance is definitely lost over text-based communication.

@Oniya: My brother is a type 1 diabetic, and I have never once gotten on his case about where his insulin comes from. If you expect me to be all or nothing for all GMOs, I must apologize but I'm not that much of a fanatic. I certainly hope no more of my immediate circle requires any of what you mentioned. Not because that would require me to come down on them about GMOs, but because I want them all to be healthy. And the shady company I'm referring to throughout my statements on GMO has been specifically Monsanto.

I refuse to eat anything GMO, period. I've been allergic to soy my whole life, which I'm now looking at as a blessing. And I've eliminated corn-based anything from my diet as well. There are many other options out there.

I have to say this argument is silly. GMO leads to organ failure in rats...but the GMO's that we eat as humans don't have enough bad things in them to kill us, just like if you left a rat next to an xray machine for about the same amount of time it would take for us to get an xray, the rat could obtain cancer. GMO's make it so that we aren't starving or dieing in the streets because we have enough food to fuel our country.

Plus, the Huffington Post is silly in my opinion. I don't ever believe what I read there unless someone else posts it first

GMO's make it so that we aren't starving or dieing in the streets because we have enough food to fuel our country.

GMO's are not mutually exclusive to that. There has been plenty of corn and food grown without them being GMO. And we still have the availability to grow more. We have the ability to grow enough food to feed the planet, every last one of us. It's just that there are many hindrances by those who make profit out of the current and tragic situation we are in, and who in turn said profits to see that laws protect their damaging means of business.

GMO's are not mutually exclusive to that. There has been plenty of corn and food grown without them being GMO. And we still have the availability to grow more. We have the ability to grow enough food to feed the planet, every last one of us. It's just that there are many hindrances by those who make profit out of the current and tragic situation we are in, and who in turn said profits to see that laws protect their damaging means of business.

The problem is GMOs let us grow a lot of food, fast. It also lets us grow foods that can survive in environments that they might not have been able to before, to have added vitamins and minerals that they didn't before. They can also have built in protections against diseases, fungal infections and parasites that 'natural' crops don't have. All of which helps feed people and expands the variity of food avalible to eat.

Back on topic; Unless there is a way to know exactly what diesel and gas was made from tar sands, I don't think it's feasible to boycott the companies. All of the named ones do business all over the world. They very likely get their fuel from many different companies depending on the location of the ships, trains and trucks. Since the tarsands are located in Canada, why not boycott businesses there that use the fuel? The smaller businesses there would feel the impact of a boycott a lot more than the large companies you named in your op.

There are some genetic modifications that we could make to food that would be definitely harmful (for example, trying to isolate the genes associated with toxicity in various poisons and splicing them with potatoes), so it isn't at all rational to say that GMO is always completely harmless to the body. However, if done responsibly, there is no logical reason to believe that all forms of GMO lead to negative effects. The study you linked is simply one piece of evidence that one particular instance of genetic modification is bad for rats. That is not sufficient evidence whatsoever to conclude that GMO is bad as a whole, it's a technique that can be applied responsibly or irresponsibly. Furthermore, animal to human testing is not always generalizable and that's one exploratory study that needs replication and further extrapolation.

If you look at the study that you quoted itself rather than reading politicized summations, you'll find that their authors actually agree with what I have been saying word for word practically:

Quote

Patho-physiological profiles are unique for each GM crop/food, underlining the necessity for a case-by-case evaluation of their safety, as is largely admitted and agreed by regulators. It is not possible to make comments concerning any general, similar subchronic toxic effect for all GM foods.

It seems apparent to me that you've bought into a lot of fear mongering and paranoia spread by activists and polemics and barely skimmed the surface of the research in this area. If you'd like to learn more, please check out: http://www.biofortified.org/

To those wishing to discuss GMOs: If you wish to start a fresh topic debating GMOs and the benefits or consequences of consuming them, you are welcome to continue the debate there.

To Valencia: You have been repeatedly asked for unbiased sources. This means articles or studies published in peer-reviewed journals. If you continue to make claims and slander companies without backing them up with specific quotes and statistics from said unbiased sources, this thread will be locked.

Discussions in P&R are held to a higher standard because of the nature of the topics; if you cannot meet those standards, then you should not be posting here.

Not entirely sure where you've 'plied' the term unbiased and whatnot, but whatever the case, you've been asked multiple times to supply the source of your info about a) the refining process, and b) Safeway, Dole, and Chiquita. Later, it was made clear that Greenpeace is not an acceptable source given its history of deception.

I've personally searched through peer-reviewed sources, and I know at least two others have done the same, and have found nothing to substantiate what you're saying. So, the responsibility is yours to back up what you're claiming. If you can't back it up, go make a rant about it or something. Don't bring it into a forum that's been set aside for discussion and debate. It's not a personal attack so much as a requirement that you don't say things without being able to support them.

Valencia, I understand you're probably frustrated, but you have to understand that nobody here is shooting down your sources just because they disagree -- they're telling you that not all sources are created equal. Research isn't as simple as typing in a few key terms on Google and plucking out the ones that say what you want them to say. Not all sources are reliable -- and people here in this thread are telling you that because research can be dishonest. Look at the whole anti-vaccination scheme; the guy was shown to be a fraud, admitted to being a fraud, and yet there is still a sizable group of well-intentioned parents who are potentially harming their children because they've bought into the wrong information.

It's not an attempt to make you look stupid, it's an attempt to promote intelligent discussion from credible sources so that we all might have a better understanding of the truth, and not some organization's spin on the subject from either side of the issue. If this isn't something that appeals to you or you can't be bothered to do research and would just prefer to rant, I think the Bad and the Ugly section might suit you better.